[0x3f]

> Should is an opinion.

Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.

[ceejayoz]

> Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable.

You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice.

They get violated all the time and need constant protecting.

[0x3f]

You're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions.

[ceejayoz]

You're taking a strangely US-centric view here.

This has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Ancient Greeks talked about natural law. The UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 193 countries have ratified at least parts of it.

Again, I beg you to at least read a paragraph or two off Wikipedia.

[0x3f]

The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is not going to make appeal to authority work any better as an argument, I'm afraid.

[ceejayoz]

Clear ignorance again.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

> Preamble

> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

[0x3f]

Is the US not in the UN now or something? The whole UNUDHR was an Eleanor Roosevelt project. She literally drafted the documents! At least look it up before being rude. You need to get the knowledge before applying the sass.